A widely lauded law that would ban insider trading by members of Congress and their staff includes language that does something else entirely, said former Virginia congressman Tom Davis — it further vilifies lobbyists, hindering government’s ability to take advantage of industry knowledge and expertise.

“The people who lose out aren’t just those in industry, but the government,” said the seven-term Republican who represented a Northern Virginia district. “They need the opportunity to get out of their bubble.”

President Barack Obama signed on April 4 the 2012 Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or the STOCK Act, which prohibits the players on Capitol Hill from using nonpublic information gleaned from their positions to make private profit.

Most cheer this law as long overdue. But its less-touted provisions could have a far more direct impact on the contracting community, not just by expanding the definition of a corporate lobbyist but also by piling more requirements onto employees who market company expertise to people on the Hill who control the government’s purse strings.

Specifically, the STOCK Act asks the U.S. comptroller general to submit to House and Senate committees a report on the role of “political intelligence” — information culled from government employees and members and staff of Congress that is passed on to a client presumably to influence investment decisions.

In other words, this hits lobbyists right where they live.

“The larger contractors and many trade associations do have government affairs shops, where they hire political intelligence operators, also sometimes registered as lobbyists,” said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at Herndon-based Deltek Inc., who prior to joining the private sector was assistant deputy director for procurement and logistics at the Defense Information Systems Agency. “Occasionally there is a revolving door between the legislative branch and these shops,” which market their companies’ expertise to the Hill and recruit staffers and members to work for them.

The STOCK Act calls for details on the extent to which nonpublic information is being sold, the legal and ethical issues that may be raised by the sale of political intelligence and any benefits or legal issues that could come from imposing more disclosure requirements on those who engage in political intelligence activities. No specifics about the latter were included in the law, which gained traction after a November 2011 episode of “60 Minutes” reported that several members of Congress allegedly used insider information for personal gain.

But to some — including Davis, who now serves as director of federal government affairs for Deloitte & Touche LLP in D.C. — this is an attempt not only to squash bad behavior among elected officials but to build a wall between government and what he describes as the messengers of industry.

Davis, who chaired the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, called upon lobbyists on a regular basis while in office to find out how companies might be able to address a particular challenge facing agencies.

“Demonizing lobbyists won’t make government run any better,” he said. “It will just inhibit the flow of information from the public through their members and make it difficult for good ideas to get across. The law may be well-intended, but it ends up hypocritical in practice.”

While lobbyists are already required to disclose quarterly information about their activities, including the names of their clients and the fees earned, some argue that this law has the potential to expand the definition of lobbyist — requiring anyone who visits a member of Congress on behalf of a company to register and potentially be subject to such disclosures.

An individual is categorized as a lobbyist — and required to register as one — if 20 percent of that person’s time is spent lobbying for a single client.

Under the STOCK Act, “it’s not clear that you wouldn’t need to register if you have any contact, which means any employees who participate in a [meeting] would have to become registered lobbyists,” said Stan Soloway, CEO of the Professional Services Council in Arlington. “It’s just a big overreach.”

Davis doesn’t consider himself a lobbyist — he and others in government affairs positions for private companies simply offer a more rounded perspective, he said. But he registered as one anyway to ensure he didn’t get “caught on the wrong side.” Unfortunately, the administration’s efforts to “diss the profession” could have the opposite impact of what’s intended — encouraging a black market of off-the-books communications between Congress and industry, he added.

The proposals included in the STOCK Act follow other efforts by the Obama administration to rein in the influence of lobbyists.

The law also strengthens existing rules about employment negotiations between private companies and government employees and the members or staff of Congress, and extends them across the judicial, legislative and executive branches.

Specifically, within three business days after such negotiations begin, government employees and members or staff of Congress are required to disclose the information and recuse themselves from decision-making if there’s any potential for a conflict of interest.

Could such requirements chill hiring of government executives and Hill members and staffers by contractors? Not likely, since existing rules already require companies to tread carefully.

“If a company wants a staffer, they’ll work with them in their official capacity and make an offer without prior discussion” to avoid any perception of conflict of interest, said Greg Garcia, former assistant secretary of cybersecurity and communications at the Department of Homeland Security. “The revolving door keeps turning.”